
But to make a fortune is a different story.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:17, archived)

Top pay is decided by actions not appearance. Your "majority" never see the stars before surgery or makeup. They see the makeup, silicone and photoshopped results. You are completely deluded on this.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:21, archived)

Tera Patrick, as an example, was making a fucking mint out of porn before she had any surgery. She was even drafted by Wrestling companies and TV shows. She's plastic as fuck now, but she was already one of the top stars long before she seemingly took a dive into the BDD pool.
There are still other stars at the top of the game who have not had any surgery at all.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:27, archived)

I bet none of her photos wre photoshopped either!
You're even more deluded than it first seemed!
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:31, archived)

You really are clutching at straws now, and claim I'm the deluded one. No, not much of her material was photoshopped, actually. Photoshop work is expensive, so most porn producers don't bother with it to save money - even the biggest. However, even if it were needed, because she already has natural beauty, very little would have been needed. You pay designers/artists by time, not per picture, so it would still save money to have an already attractive girl, who'd only need a bit of airbrushing, compared to someone that would need virtual facial reconstruction.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:38, archived)

Without all that makeup, she'd be a massive fail, like you.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:41, archived)

Are you incapable of seeing what a girl is like without make up on, Dave, is that it?
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:46, archived)

You and your friend here might like to analyse porn, but your beloved majority won't be the slightest bit interested in what's under the makeup. Makeup done by a pro can make even a sinfully ugly girl look great.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:49, archived)

won't need as much, so it won't cost as much, so there is less expense, so there is more money, so the actress can demand more money, so she gets paid more.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:52, archived)

The better looking girls aren't as successful. You seem to believe that porn success is primarily down to appearance. That just isn't true - it's a certain personality, ability and actions that count. Makeup and photoshop are NOT expensive anymore, and certainly don't decide level of success.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 6:56, archived)

Porn is primarily appearance. I won't deny the others you list are a factor, because they are. However this goes back to, yet again something already discussed, the fact she is willing to take photos of her scantily dressed self and put them on the net can easily be seen as exhibitionism, the main behavioural attribute of all pornstars.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:00, archived)

ALL professional pornstars making money are heavily caked in makeup, and 99% of them have implants. Many of them also admit to sexual abuse when they were younger.
Genetics do not decide the success of a porn model.
( , Sat 27 Sep 2008, 7:04, archived)